Fireworks Expected at Pete Stark Town Hall

This Saturday, congressman Pete Stark will be doing his periodic town hall meeting in Alameda, noon at City Hall.

Usually these are interesting but fairly sedate. According to his latest email newsletter, he's focusing on issues such as health care reform, protecting our environment, fixing cracks in our mental health system, help for working families, and voting against war.

Apparently there are some right-wing groups that are targeting town halls across the country, and Pete Stark's is expected to be hit — the idea not being civil discourse and disagreement, but disrupting.

Democrats, progressives, and level-headed people are requested to come to the meeting to stand up for health care reform, our better-than-average congressman, and the principles of calm debate.

(If you attend, don't get sucked into having an argument with the right-wingers!)

Please arrive a bit early; it may be crowded this time.

If you want to lean on Mr. Stark, ask him to take the pledge to voting against anything but a strong public option in the health care bill. He has not yet taken this pledge. It's the only way to preserve this option while other Democrats are succumbing to industry pressure.

This time around, the Democrats are the Bad Guys

I was absolutely sickened by the passage in the House of Representatives of the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It reminded me of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act of a few short years ago.

What's that? A bill to fight the climate crisis being compared to the so-called "Patriot" Act?

If you saw Michael Moore's infamous Fahrenheit 9/11, you may remember the shocking confession by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan that in Congress they often don't actually read the bill.

And this is just what happened yesterday. Apparently 300 pages were added at the last minute to the bill at 3 AM. And regardless of their motivation for wanting or not wanting the bill, it was the Republicans who were right for trying to actually put the brakes on the process and actually give themselves time to read the bill. Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, raised questions about whether "there was even a copy of the current version of the bill anywhere in the House chamber."

So now are you starting to see the parallels between this and the "Patriot" Act? I don't care what a bill is supposed to solve; if Congress allows it to be pushed through to passage like the railroad car in Back to the Future Part III, then there is a big problem with Congress. And this time, it's the Democrats who are conducting this train - not the evil Republicans.

So where does our representative, Pete Stark, stand on this? I'm not sure. According to SolveClimate, Stark voted No "on the grounds that the bill wasn't strong enough". OK, that's fine. But I really want to find out what he thinks about the whole way that the Democrats are allowing bills to be passed, unread.

This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. It fills me with incredible sorrow that we had fought for so long to wrestle control of Congress away from the Republicans, only to have the Democrats do basically the same thing.

What is in these 300 pages that were snuck in at 3 AM? We'll probably find out soon enough, just as we eventually did with the "Patriot" Act, and I'm pretty sure we're not going to like what it contains. Even if the overall purpose of the bill is a "good" thing, sneaking in 300 pages of provisions without vetting them is most assuredly not. Remember, at the time that the "Patriot" Act was proposed, everybody thought it was critical that it be passed for national security. Boy, do we wish that never happened!

The only glimmer of hope is that there is a movement afoot to stop the passage of laws in the dark like this. It's called "Read the Bill." The idea is that all leglislation be made available to the public (on the Internet) for 72 hours before it can be voted upon.

There is a bill on the floor in Congress, called H. Res 554, which would put this rule into effect. I have been trying to find out if Pete Stark is in favor of this (and if he'll even sign on as a co-sponsor). I've gotten the run-around from his office.

If you have a moment, please call Rep. Stark at 202-225-5065 (Washington DC) or 510-494-1388 (Fremont Office) and tell the receptionist about H. Res. 554. (It's important to use the term "H. Res." and not "H.R.")

Shame on Nancy Pelosi. Shame on Henry Waxman. Shame on Congress. We should be better than this.

APC party - a good time had by all, plus big funds raised

Last weekend, David Teeters put on a fundraiser party benefiting Alameda Point Collaborative a non-profit that is working "to end homelessness by providing housing and services to create communities where formerly homeless families and individuals can flourish."

This is truly a wonderful organization that I've been a fan of for many years now. It's one of Alameda's "best kept secrets" but I'm one of many who are trying to help get more people aware of it.

David's party was a big success, and managed to raise over $2000 for a good cause. (If you didn't hear about it, then you must not be on my email list. Send me a message at the address listed at the top of this blog and I'll put you on my informal email list!)

If you missed the party, or if you just want to help, there are a lot of suggestions for how you can help. The list suggests a lot of non-monetary opportunities to get involved, or you can just make a tax-deductable donation online.

This is one of Alameda's most worthy nonprofits (among, for example, BikeAlameda, near and dear to my heart, and the ever-popular Meals on Wheels), and it deserves your helping hand - especially in these lean economic times.

Mothers Day Greetings!

This short video talks about the origin of Mothers Day. Yes, it's great that we spend at least one day (if not 365) honoring the the mothers in our lives… but this day was not created as a Hallmark Card day. It was all about Peace.

Top Twenty Reasons Why Proposition 1A is a Bad Idea

This is a flyer that local Kathy Neal, Mario Juarez, and I created and distributed at the California Democratic Convention a couple of weeks ago. Feel free to download the flyer and make some copies to give to your friends and neighbors — or email to friends across California.

1. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is for 1A

2. Tying the Legislature’s hands behind its back is the wrong way to do a budget - We’ve learned that with Props 13 and 98.

3. In times of recession, the need for State services increases.

4. Californians only receive 4 years of new taxes in exchange for a

permanent spending cap. Permanent cap, temporary revenues = BAD DEAL.

5. Allows short-term legislators to defer a real budget solution until they are gone

6. Proposes to fix a symptom rather than the underlying problem

7. True budget reform must address the structural deficit – 1A does not do this.

8. Constitutionally removes essential flexibility to deal with the State’s fiscal needs – prevents the Legislature and Governor from setting priorities essential to a particular time.

9. In financially difficult years will hold State spending at a level that is too low to guarantee

adequate services and in good years restricts State from increasing revenues

10. Undermines our system of checks and balances by allowing the Governor to unilaterally make mid-year cuts without consulting the Legislature

11. Hastily drafted, behind closed doors, in secret, in the dead of night, without a single hearing or independent analysis

12. Dictates a shift in spending that can’t be changed, regardless of future needs

13. Could require cuts to public education, health care, public safety and others in good times

14. Will not do what it promises and instead will lead to deep cuts in service

15. The League of Women Voters urges a NO vote

16. Most observers expect painful degradation of service

17. Mandates a permanent spending cap

18. Prohibits legislators from taking full advantage of additional revenues when California comes out of the recession

19. Shifts responsibility for future budget decisions away from the legislature and onto invisible state employees

20. Does not fix fundamental budget problem - California is one of only three states requiring a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a budget. Republicans continually hijack the process!

2/3 budget rule = 1/3 tyranny

I've been talking about the problems with the current 1A-1F propositions on the ballot for the May 19 special election.

The real underlying problem with our state budget is that unlike 47 out of 50 states, our state needs a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget. Although this seems like a good idea on the surface, that it would build consensus, it just doesn't make sense when there are such strong ideological differences for which a consensus can never be reached. Fifty percent majority thresholds exist for a reason! So each cycle, the Democrats (who have a comfortable majority in both state houses) have to work to try to get just a few Republicans to cross party lines to make a budget that covers things like, you know, education, health care, salaries for state workers, and so forth.

I mentioned a while ago that our Senator, Loni Hancock, introduced SCA5, which would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to fix the problem. It just needs to get some more traction to get passed by the legislature — but will that happen? If you have California friends outside of our district, try to get them to get their state senator to support SCA5.

Here's Hancock talking about the issue. This is an excerpt (hat tip to Calitics and Josh Richman) of a video documenting an Oakland School's bicycle trek to Sacramento to raise awareness of the issue. Watch this two-minute excerpt here:

Look, Dad, I'm famous!

A short post: It looks like a picture of me handing out "No on 1A" stickers last Sunday is in today's Chronicle on page B5 — "B" as in Babylon, of course.

To save all three of this blog's readers from the trouble of heading over to the corner of Park Street and Santa Clara avenue to buy themselves a copy, I'll direct you to the image here. It's part of a barely-related story about the state budget woes.

And yes, I called my Dad (and Mom) to tell them about it. Though the main reason for the call was to wish him a Happy Birthday…

My "No" Endorsement on Propositions 1A-1F

I send out an occasional email to folks I know locally and around California before election time who might not read this blog. Without further ado, this is the core of a message I sent out yesterday:

You probably have already received your information and ballots, and probably some mailings as well about Propositions 1A -- especially 1A -- as well as 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F.

My super-condensed recommendation: JUST SAY NO. Please vote, definitely, but I'd be just as happy if you voted NO on every one -- well, especially 1A.

But you probably want a bit more detail and perspective and nuance, especially because you are going to be seeing and reading impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue over the days and weeks to come.

First off, who is behind these propositions? It's our state legislators - a democratic majority held hostage by a republican minority to trying to reach 2/3 majority to pass a budget for the state. Year after year, they have a horrible time keeping the state running because, to paraphrase my state Senator (I think it was her), "It's hard to make a deal with somebody who doesn't care about the outcome." These propositions were their Faustian bargain in order to get a budget passed and prevent the state government from shutting down a few months ago. So there is immense pressure by most of the legislators, and Governor Schwarzenegger, to pass this. (I should note that our local representatives, Assemblymember Sandré Swanson and Senator Loni Hancock are, bravely, standing in opposition to most other Democrats on this issue.)

The reason these propositions -- especially Proposition 1A, the main one -- are a bad idea is that they are a SHORT-TERM FIX with LONG-TERM DAMAGE to our constitution.

You will probably be getting a lot of pleas to pass these propositions from advocacy groups, especially education groups, saying that we must pass these or terrible things will happen. (I should point out that educators are actually quite split on the issue -- the California Teachers Association (CTA) is for 1A; the California Federation of Teachers and the California Faculty Association are against it.) We are indeed at a precipice but unfortunately with these temporary revenues (starting in two years!) comes a permanent spending cap on state services.

The League of Women Voters says that "this measure would only make things worse." I couldn't agree more. These ballot measures only fix a symptom rather than the fundamental underlying problem. Colorado implemented something like this in 1992 and has suffered greatly because of it.

In the weeks up to the Democratic Convention last week, the state legislators put tremendous pressure on delegates to get the Democratic Party to endorse these measures. Delegates have been deluged with emails, letters and circulars, and personal or robo-phone calls from our party leadership, begging us to endorse their compromise. But it didn't work. The grassroots know better. The party couldn't reach the required number of votes to show a party consensus on Proposition 1A and several others.

I am hoping that with the Republican party (except for Schwarzenegger) in opposition to 1A, and the Democratic Party not taking a position, that this measure and most of the other ones can be defeated, which just means that our representatives in Sacramento will have to continue to fight for a long-term solution. There will still be a lot of money spent on both sides, with most of the Pro-1A funding coming from the aforementioned CTA along with Schwarzenegger's PAC, the billionaire owner of Univision TV, and Chevron, for example. (Hmmm....)

So here is the breakdown on the propositions:

1A - A state spending cap. This is the poison pill that has to go along with 1B. If this passes we are in deep, deep trouble.

1B - Education funding. Looks good but here's the trick - it only goes into effect if Proposition 1A passes. So the Democratic Party came out in support of 1B, but as a symbolic gesture only. Some people are voting "yes" strategically so that if, worst-case, Proposition 1A were to pass, at least we'd get the short-term benefit. I'm inclined to "just say no" to the whole process.

1C - Sells bonds for education backed by lottery revenues. This one did get the nod from the Democratic Party though just barely, which I think is a shame. I agree with one opponent of this who said "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful."

1D, 1E - diverting funding for childhood services and mental health services. This has been described as robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of revenue this would save is trivial in any case.

1F - a time-waster initiative that will probably pass because it sounds like a good idea. This blocks pay raises for state officials if the budget is showing a deficit. Sounds like an OK idea on the surface, which is probably why it's doing so well in the polls. I really don't care one way or another if it passes. The Democratic party came out strongly in favor of it despite its many flaws for (as I see it) public relations purposes.

If you are interested in more, check out Calitics, a respected California political blog, which has a really good run-down of these measures, with much more analysis than I can muster.

http://tinyurl.com/calitics-1a

And here are the LWV's positions:
http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0905/flyer.html

But feel free to ask me if you have any thoughts or questions. I'm by no means the expert on this whole thing, but I talked to a lot of people on both sides of these ballot measures, so maybe I can help you come to a decision for your vote.

And as always, feel free to forward this missive along to your friends and neighbors.

CA Democratic Convention Wrap-Up

Back from the weekend's California Democratic Convention, and with a good night's sleep behind me, I thought I would post my recap of the event. But first, the one-word executive summary: SUCCESS!

I came to the convention with high hopes for a number of candidates and issues. In earlier posts I talked about my positions on the candidates, specifically my endorsements of Karen Bernal for chair of the Progressive Caucus and Karen Weinstein for the Women's Caucus; my endorsement (along with a bunch of volunteering, even with the kids helping) for Hilary Crosby for Controller of the party, and my hopes to block a party endorsement of 1A and its little sisters.

When Karen Bernal easily won her race on Friday evening, I started a running gag with fellow progressive delegate (and issues chair of the City of Alameda Democratic Club) Mark Briggs: "One down, three to go." Saturday morning, after a dreadfully early 7:30 AM convening of the Women's caucus, we found the Karen Weinstein and in fact her entire slate that ran on the platform that the caucus should actually do something, all but swept the results. (One position ended up in a tie and I never found the final result.) I held up the number two (which, coincidentally, could be interpreted as "peace" or "victory", but I digress).

I should mention that most of my time Friday and Saturday was alternating between helping with Hilary Crosby's campaign and opposing proposition 1A, along with attending meetings and watching speeches from the main hall. I barely had a chance to rest or eat — when I took a walk and quiet lunch break finally on Saturday, I hadn't eaten a proper meal since the previous lunch!

Saturday evening I attended the "Red to Blue" dinner rather than the official Party's dinner banquet. It was attended by grassroots Dems whom I've known from the Howard Dean days as well as John Edwards campaign events. Howard Dean himself was there, first mingling and then giving a short but well-received speech. Following were awards presented to local "red county" congressional candidates (including the victorious Jerry McNerney). The speeches were heartfelt and received warm ovations — but when Hilary Crosby came up to the podium to announce that she'd just gotten the results, and that she had won the controller's race, the room erupted in cheers that dwarfed the earlier applause. She had won by 54% but it seemed like nearly 100% of the people in the room were her supporters or volunteers who spent hours making phone calls to fellow delegates (rather than her opponent's robo-calls), preparing campaign materials, and working the convention floor over the last two days.

"That's three."

Sunday, I spent the entire morning talking to fellow delegates and passing out anti-1A stickers that a small group of us in the area had designed and printed ourselves, alongside other folks who were handing out pro-1A stickers (We played nice) and other anti-1A groups. We had already distributed a couple of thousand bright orange informational "Why Proposition 1A is a Bad Idea" flyers on Saturday; now it was down to the final push. I had to take a break to go see Howard Dean and Debra Bowen speak, but otherwise it was non-stop trying to get people to show their support for blocking the party's endorsement of this proposition and help convince people who were on the fence.

When I saw the chairwoman of the resolutions committee up on stage, I knew it was time to go take my seat so I could vote. And after impassioned arguments from both sides of the issue (who care about the same things at the end of the day, which made it hard for many to grasp the issue), it came time to vote. These endorsement votes, designed to capture a sense of the party's consensus, require a 60% majority to pass. And 1A managed to get … 58%. I don't have the actual counts but we managed to block the endorsement by something like 22 or 26 votes. We managed to prevent the Democratic Party from endorsing Proposition 1A. And with the Republican party opposing it (yes, politics makes strange bedfellows), we may be able to prevent it from succeeding at the polls.

"That's four."

The other measures had some fights, but the results were pretty much what I expected. Proposition 1B, which brought education funding, easily got the party endorsement, though it's symbolic only because it would only go into effect if the damaging Proposition 1A were to pass. Proposition 1C's endorsement passed, which I'm not too happy about, but then again, I despise the entire way that the lottery ("taxation for the poor") is tied to our education budget. (One speaker argued "balancing the budget on the backs of those who play the lottery is despicable and shameful," which sums it up for me.) 1D and 1E failed to achieve an endorsement. Finally, Proposition 1F, a weak incentive to legislators to balance the budget, is clearly a measure designed to pander to the voting masses. I started out opposed to the measure, but the speakers in favor of it had some very convincing arguments that it would essentially be good public relations for the Democratic Party to come out in favor of reform, especially because it is polling so well. Most delegates ended up agreeing, and its endorsement passed overwhelmingly. What-ever.....

So all in all, a successful (and enjoyable) convention!

Pre-Convention #3: Just Say No to Propositions 1A-1F

The California Democratic Convention, starting tomorrow, will have the most fireworks when it comes to the upcoming Propositions 1A-1F in the upcoming election. I predict that it will be a battle between the MACHINE and the GRASSROOTS for the soul of the CA Democratic Party.

Here's the deal: The Democrats in the California Legislature, as a way to compromise the minority rule of the Republican Party, have teamed up with the Republicans to write Propositions 1A through 1F, and then heavily promote them as a way to solve our state's budget crisis. Only this "solution" is not going to actually solve anything in the long term.

Most Democratic activists know this. Democratic clubs around the state (including our own City of Alameda Democratic Club) have rejected these propositions and are urging a NO vote. But most of the political insiders — almost all State Senators and Assemblymembers except, well, ours (Loni Hancock and Sandré Swanson) plus a few brave others, are pushing at the delegates to help the Democratic Party, when it meets this weekend, officially endorse these measures.

These propositions are a nightmare. They are a Republican's Wet Dream. They are the Democratic Party selling their souls to the Republicans. They are a wedge designed to split the party (1B sounds enticing, but it can only pass if 1A passes).

As a delegate, I've been bombarded with flyers and emails over the last couple of weeks from so-called progressive electeds. Mark Leno, Karen Bass, Jerry Brown, and others are trying their darndest to get us, the grassroots, to support their compromise.

I understand their "hands tied" position, but the reality is, if these propositions pass, the legislature's hands will be welded down, almost permanently. It's horrible that we are placed in this position where Democrats are pushing for permanent spending caps.

Fortunately there are are groups who are opposed to it. The League of Women Voters has come out strongly against 1A and most of its sisters:

The League would support real budget reform, but we regretfully conclude that this measure would only make things worse.

Bob Burnett writes in the Huffington Post:

It's clear that California's Democratic legislators were between the proverbial rock and a hard place and tried to do the best they could. But that's no excuse. It's not enough to put a temporary budget fix in place. The fundamental problem needs to be addressed.

At the convention this weekend, if the grassroots can resist the pressure from Democratic leadership to go along with this Faustian bargain, maybe we can defeat this horrible band-aid, and come up with a long-term solution that actually works.

By the way, I want to just express how fortunate I feel that we are represented here in the State Legislator by Hancock and Swanson. I haven't agreed with everything they have said or done, but in this case, they are sticking their necks out for what's right, and not caving into pressure or even retaliation for their principles.

I'll have more to say on these measures as we get closer to the election. But in case it's not clear yet: Please vote NO on the special election ballot measures, especially NO on 1A, the "lynchpin" of them all.

Convention Update: Caucuses PLUS Equal Pay Day in Alameda

I was going to write about the caucuses at the California Democratic Convention, specifically the women's caucus, and propitiously as I entered Julie's Coffee and Tea Garden this morning (from where I write this) I noticed a prominent sign in the window announcing "Equal Pay Day" (link to PDF flyer) in Alameda, coming Tuesday April 28, a week from today. The goal of the day is to highlight that "on average, women are still paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men for the same position."

Although the numbers aren't the same, this reminds me of these lyrics from Laurie Anderson's "Beautiful Red Dress" from the late eighties:

OK! OK! Hold it!
I just want to say something.
You know, for every dollar a man makes
a woman makes 63 cents.
Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888
before we make a buck.

Anyhow, that day features discounts for women from businesses all around Alameda, but more importantly, it raises awareness of an issue that just doesn't go away. Men and women around the island are asked to wear RED that day to help raise awareness.

So what does that have to do with this weekend's California Democratic Convention?

My friend Karen Weinstein is running for chair of the Women's Caucus of the Party. She's currently Political Development chair of the caucus, and is one of Alameda County's elected representatives to the Democratic Party. She's a 2008 alumna of EMERGE. And she's an amazingly dedicated activist.

She is running on the platform that the Women's Caucus should be a great opportunity for activism regarding Women's issues, but that the current leadership is just not taking enough leadership. A bit over a year ago, for instance, progressive members of the caucus managed to introduce and pass a resolution censuring Dianne Feinstein for her Republican-like stances on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and her support for Mukasey as Attorney General. This was against the leadership of the caucus. I've heard several stories like this.

Karen has been racking up endorsements, notably from the California branch of the National Women's Political Caucus. She will have my support and my vote at the convention. (Yes, men can be members of the Women's caucus - it's about women's issues, not a club for women.)

I've also been a member of the Progressive Caucus, almost from its inception. (I unfortunately missed the first meeting of the group, before it was officially recognized by the party. Some of the grassroots-vs.-Party-establishment fireworks that happened in that meeting have become legen....wait for it ...dary. Anyhow, for some reason the North vs. South co-chair sharing of leadership in that caucus is in jeopardy (Hmm, sounds like the party vice-chair issue I mentioned yesterday!) and if that change in leadership structure happens, I am supporting Karen Bernal for the leadership of that caucus. Actually, I'm hoping that this change in structure doesn't happen, at which point I don't know what will happen.

Ah, politics.

Democratic Convention Preview: Candidate Positions

I realized recently that I had neglected to post the good news here, that although I narrowly missed being elected delegate to the California Democratic Party, I managed to snag an appointment by representative Sandré Swanson. All of our local state and federal elected officials have a few slots for delegate appointments, so I'm grateful to have had this opportunity to continue my quest.

The 2009 California Democratic Convention is coming up in less than a week, and it's looking to be a busy, exciting event — much more so than last year's perhaps because there was so much emphasis on the two-person Presidential Primary race (which, by then, I had lost interest in).

Each year is quite different. This year, most of the hubbub will be about the elected offices of the state party itself. I've been following the races closely, and though my analysis and position won't mean much to many readers, I feel it's important to express my thoughts to those few readers who may be delegates, and also to help people in the general public understand the issues.

The race that is most important to me is the race for controller of the Party. HIlary Crosby is running against incumbent Eric Bradley, and I have been working on her campaign by placing phone calls to fellow delegates across the state to spread the word. (When a delegate personally calls a delegate, it's usually welcomed, unlike political calls made to the general public.) Hilary is "one of us" - a grassroots activists whom I've known for several years. She's a CPA, so she really knows money, and she's been working with groups like Take Back Red California and California Democratic Council to train treasurers of local Democratic clubs across the state, a program which she can continue in all 58 counties if elected. Her opponent is more of an "insider" and while he is a good fundraiser, he's not a financial professional.

Interestingly, Hilary's opposition to him has "changed the conversation" in a big way. The things that Hilary says are important are now things that Bradley says are important too, as soon as he's re-elected. I'm sorry, but we are a lot smarter than that; you can't be an incumbent and run on a platform of changing the system — you are the system. Anyhow, Hilary has been racking up endorsements across the state from clubs, individuals, and elected officials. And she just got an endorsement from the national group Democracy for America, which is a big deal!

The vice-chair positions have gotten jumbled around a bit. Previously there was a Northern California and Southern California vice chair — a good idea since our halves of the state are so different — but for some bizarre reason they changed it to one Male and one Female vice chair. If we had some issue with gender participation, it might, but the CDP does not have an issue. We currently have two women in that position (Alexandra "Alex" Gallardo-Rooker from Southern California, and Alicia Wang from Northern California). Now they are running against each other! In any case, I've heard both of them speak several times, and I'm much more impressed by Alicia Wang so I'll be supporting her. Considering that Rooker has recently teamed up with Eric Bradley, sending out disingenuous messages about a need for change, my support for Ms. Wang has just gotten stronger.

As far as the Male Vice Chair goes, I've heard a lot of good things about Eric Bauman (a former candidate for the chair — more on that later) but I"m keeping an open mind; apparently he does have an opponent but I have not heard much about him.

As far as the Chair of the party goes? Well there initially was a healthy contest, with two or three candidates. But for reasons I don't quite understand, all of the candidates dropped out after State Senator John Burton got into the race. Apparently he's just unstoppable. And that's what worries me. He's a huge political machine — as one friend said, he's "Don Perata Squared." Shudder.

So as a throwaway "protest" vote, I am endorsing Chris Finnie, a late entrant to the race who is a grassroots activist, and, unfortunately, a total long shot. She is a true grassroots activist who actually has some really compelling plans. I know her chances of winning are nil, but I just can't stand for these Cuban style election farces, and that's what this race is. I wish it had been an opportunity to choose the most qualified candidate instead of a juggernaut.

In my next post I'll talk about the upcoming state propositions, which will be a big topic at the convention.

Alameda Democratic Club Gets a Blog

Mark Briggs, long-time fellow delegate and now Issues Chair for the City of Alameda Democratic Club, pointed out to me that the club now has a blog:

It's called We've Got Issues.

Naturally, I've subscribed to the RSS feed for this; I hope you will too.

(And if you are still reading blogs over the web and you haven't discovered RSS, google around and learn how to save tons of time checking for new content!)

Sandré Swanson Punished for Not Falling in Line

I just learned that our assembly member, Sandré Swanson, and two other Democrats in the State Assembly have been stripped of committee chairmanships because the refused to fall in line with the rest of the Democratic caucus.

Swanson was striped of his position as chair of the Assembly Labor and Employment committee by Assembly speaker Karen Bass, because he voted on principle, breaking with the Democratic caucus.

A Contra Costa Times article from Wednesday has the story. In this article, Swanson is quoted: "To ask members not to protest these cuts — it's a violation of my principles when I know workers are there to serve the elderly, catch a person when they fall," Swanson said. "Particularly at a time when this budget had $1 billion in tax breaks for corporations."

Apparently the Democrats had come up with a budget compromise to woo enough Republicans to join them to get the 2/3 majority needed to pass the budget. Even if I disagreed with Swanson's position, I think that he has a right to vary from the Party line from time to time. (If our representatives voted alike 100% of the time, why bother having multiple representatives?) Swanson should first and foremost be allowed to represent us, the voters in his district.

An editorial this morning from the CC Times disagrees with Swanson's position — this is Conservative Contra Costa, after all — but believes that these three lawmakers shouldn't be punished for independent thinking.

Democrats stand for diversity, but in this case, Karen Bass is showing that diverse opinions in her party will result in retribution.

Please call Karen Bass's office at (916) 319-2047 and let them know what you think. The email I got alerting me about this said that Bass was not even aware there was any controversy about this, so every phone call really counts.

SCA 5: A solution to our stupid budget situation

We all watched in horror as the California legislature tried to get a budget passed over the last few weeks. Unlike most states in the country, California needs a 2/3rds majority vote to get a budget passed. So no matter which party has a majority in the senate and assembly, the budget is always going to be like this.

In a state where a simple majority vote in general election is able to alter the state constitution with a simple 50% majority, this seems particularly ironic.

I had been thinking "Well, who is going to do something about this mess?" Well, it turns out that our own new State Senator, Loni Hancock — whom I had supported because she's the kind of politician who takes bold steps — had already started on this, back in December! Here it is, SCA 5. Assembly speaker Karen Bass introduced a similar bill, ACA 4.

Hancock is a superhero in my book.

Here is an interesting article about the whole affair.